Can Stereographic Projection from Unit Sphere to Plane be Proven as Injective?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving the injectiveness of the stereographic projection function f(x,y,z) = (x,y)/(1-z) from the unit sphere S^2 to the plane R^2. The user encounters difficulties in demonstrating that f(x_1,y_1,z_1) = f(x_2,y_2,z_2) implies (x_1,y_1,z_1) = (x_2,y_2,z_2). Despite finding the inverse mapping, the user realizes that multiple points on the sphere can project to the same point on the plane, complicating the proof of injectivity. The conclusion emphasizes the need to consider the entire mapping function rather than just individual coordinates.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of stereographic projection
  • Familiarity with the unit sphere S^2
  • Knowledge of injective functions in mathematics
  • Basic concepts of coordinate transformations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of stereographic projection in detail
  • Learn about injective functions and their proofs in topology
  • Explore inverse mappings and their significance in geometric transformations
  • Investigate the differences between isomorphic and non-isomorphic mappings
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, geometry enthusiasts, and students studying topology or geometric transformations will benefit from this discussion, particularly those interested in the properties of stereographic projections and injective mappings.

T-O7
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
So I'm trying to prove that the map
f(x,y,z) = \frac{(x,y)}{1-z}
from the unit sphere S^2 to R^2 is injective by the usual means:
f(x_1,y_1,z_1)=f(x_2,y_2,z_2) \Rightarrow (x_1,y_1,z_1)=(x_2,y_2,z_2)
But i can't seem to show it... :frown:
I end up with the result that
\frac{x_1}{x_2}=\frac{y_1}{y_2},\frac{x_1}{x_2}=\frac{1-z_1}{1-z_2},

but I'm uncertain as to what this means for points on a circle...help please?
(i have actually already found the inverse map, but i just found it a little frustrating that i couldn't prove injectiveness just straightforwardly like this..)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Haven't tried it, but since the domain of the function consists of points on the unit sphere, there is a restriction imposed on x,y and z, they cannot have any old values.
 


Stereographic projection is a geometric technique used to map points on a sphere to points on a plane. In this case, the unit sphere S^2 is being mapped to the plane R^2 using the function f(x,y,z) = \frac{(x,y)}{1-z}. The goal is to prove that this mapping is injective, meaning that each point on the sphere is uniquely mapped to a point on the plane.

To prove injectivity, the usual method is to assume that two points on the sphere, (x_1,y_1,z_1) and (x_2,y_2,z_2), are mapped to the same point on the plane, f(x_1,y_1,z_1)=f(x_2,y_2,z_2). This would mean that the two points have the same coordinates, (x_1,y_1) = (x_2,y_2), and also that the ratio of their z-coordinates is equal, \frac{1-z_1}{1-z_2} = 1. However, as you have found, this does not necessarily mean that the two points are the same, since there are multiple points on the sphere that can have the same projection onto the plane.

In order to show that the mapping is injective, you need to consider the entire mapping function, not just the coordinates. One way to do this is to find the inverse mapping, which you have already done. This means that for each point on the plane, there is a unique point on the sphere that is mapped to it, and vice versa. This shows that the mapping is one-to-one and therefore injective.

It is important to note that the mapping from the sphere to the plane is not an isomorphism, meaning that the two structures are not exactly the same. This is why the usual method of proving injectivity does not work in this case.

In conclusion, while it may be frustrating that the usual method of proving injectivity does not work for stereographic projection, it is important to understand the underlying principles and consider the entire mapping function in order to prove injectivity.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
940
  • · Replies 123 ·
5
Replies
123
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
42
Views
3K